EXPLICITATION AND IMPLICITATION IN TRANSLATION: COMBINING COMPARABLE AND PARALLEL CORPUS METHODOLOGIES - RUA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Recibido / Received: 28/04/2020
Aceptado / Accepted: 25/08/2020
Para enlazar con este artículo / To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2021.13.02
Para citar este artículo / To cite this article:
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez. (2021) “Explicitation and implicitation in
translation: Combining comparable and parallel corpus methodologies.” In: Calzada, María & Sara Laviosa
(eds.) 2021. Reflexión crítica en los estudios de traducción basados en corpus / CTS spring-cleaning: A critical
reflection. MonTI 13, pp. 62-92.
EXPLICITATION AND IMPLICITATION IN
TRANSLATION: COMBINING COMPARABLE AND
PARALLEL CORPUS METHODOLOGIES
Miguel Ángel Jiménez-Crespo
jimenez.miguel@rutgers.edu
Rutgers University
Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
itercedo@ugr.es
Universidad de Granada
Abstract
This paper studies explicitation and implicitation in translated medical texts using
a combination of comparable and parallel corpus methodologies. Previous corpus
research in this domain has shown common lexical and syntactic shifts between trans-
lated and non-translated texts (Askehave & Zethsen 2000; Jensen & Zethsen 2012),
including differences in explicitation rates surrounding Latin-Greek (LG) terms
(Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017). A parallel corpus section was compiled in order
to identify whether the observed higher explicitation ratios in English to Spanish
translations when compared to similar non-translated texts in this last study are due
to (1) cross-linguistic interference or replication of source text structures, or (2) to
the translational tendency to explicitate. The results point to a possible combination
of both, with 21% of cases of explicitation and no implicitation. Higher explicitation
ratios mainly support the interference or cross-linguistic influence hypothesis (Kruger
2018). This study also offers support for the risk aversion hypothesis (Pym 2005,
2015; Kruger 2018; De Sutter & Kruger 2018), as translations only show a tendency
to include clearer and more explicit formulations.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 63
Keywords: Explicitation; Implicitation; Medical Translation; Medical Terminology;
Parallel and Comparable Corpus Studies.
Resumen
En este artículo se estudian las estrategias de explicitación e implicitación en textos
médicos traducidos del inglés al español mediante el análisis de un corpus compara-
ble y otro paralelo. Estudios de corpus previos han mostrado que existen diferencias
léxicas y sintácticas en los textos traducidos al compararlos con los no traducidos
(Askehave & Zethsen 2000; Jensen & Zethsen 2012), entre ellas diferencias en
los porcentajes de explicitación de términos médicos de origen grecolatino (Jimé-
nez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017). Se compiló un corpus paralelo con el fin de analizar
si el mayor porcentaje de explicitación observado en las traducciones ingles-español
con respecto a textos no traducidos en este último estudio se debe (1) a interferen-
cia interlingüística o calcos de estructuras textuales de la lengua origen, o (2) a la
tendencia a explicitar, propia de la traducción. Los resultados apuntan a una posible
combinación de ambas. La tendencia a explicitar apareció en 21% de posibles casos,
sin ningún caso de implicitación. Estos resultados confirman mayoritariamente la
hipótesis de interferencia o influencia interlingüística (Kruger 2018). Además, res-
paldan la hipótesis de la aversión al riesgo (Pym 2005, 2015; Kruger 2018; De Sutter
& Kruger 2018), pues las traducciones solo muestran una tendencia a la inclusión
de formulaciones más claras y explícitas.
Palabras clave: Explicitación; Implicitación; Traducción médica; Terminología
médica; Estudios de corpus paralelos y comparables.
1. Introduction
Explicitation is the general feature, tendency, or universal of translation that
has sparked the highest interest in the scholarly community, including the
largest body of theoretical research (e.g. Pym 2005; Becher 2011; Hansen-
Schirra et al. 2007; Murtisari 2013, 2016; Kruger 2014; De Metsenaere &
Vandepitte 2017). The present study was motivated by a previous comparable
corpus study on explicitation (Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017). This study
showed that medical translations from English into Spanish contained sig-
nificantly higher lexical explicitation ratios for Latin and Greek terms (LG
terms) (e.g. hypoglycemia or high blood sugar, dyspnea or difficulty breathing)
than similar non-translated texts.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417864 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
For the purposes of the present study, a parallel section was added to
the existing comparable corpus. A comparable corpus can be defined as “a
structured electronic collection of texts originally written in a particular
language, alongside texts translated into that same language” (Baker 1995:
234), while a parallel corpus is a collection of texts alongside their trans-
lation(s) (Laviosa 2002: 37). The addition of the parallel section allows for
the comparison of source and target texts, and this was used to test whether
these higher ratios of explicitation were due to: (1) the mere replication of
source text structures, indicative of language, text type and genre-specific
differences in lexical use between the language pair in question; (2) the
translation process, as a specific type of communicative event (Baker 1995),
resulting in explicitation shifts; or (3) a combination of both. The corpus
and the compilation process will be described in detail in the methodology
section.
From a theoretical and methodological perspective, the motivations of
the study are twofold. On the one hand, the existing debate on whether com-
parable corpora by themselves are an ideal methodology to study explicita-
tion (Hansen-Schirra et al 2007; Murtisari 2016; De Maurentis & Vandepitte
2017). Researchers have argued that this methodology limits the formulation
and testing of hypothesis on the causes of explicitation, as source texts are
not included (e. g. Kruger 2014: 167, 2018: 23, 25). On the other, it is also
motivated by the need to combine the study of explicitation/ explicitness
with implicitation / implicitness (Becher 2010; Kathelijne 2012; Kruger 2014;
Van Beveren, De Sutter & Colleman 2018). Normally, as indicated a decade
ago (Klaudy & Karoly (2005: 14), the number of results revealing explic-
itation have greatly outnumbered those of implicitation, and this was the
foundation of the asymmetry hypothesis. This hypothesis states that, in
any given language pair, explicitation and implicitation cannot be consid-
ered as symmetric tendencies. In this regard, it is common that “obligatory,
optional and pragmatic explicitations tend to be more frequent than the
corresponding implicitations regardless of the SL/TL constellation at hand.”
(Becher 2010: 17).
Following the programmatic direction by several scholars such as Becher
(2011) and Klaudy (2004), different studies have explored explicitation and
implicitation jointly. Most of them have shown that translators normally
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 65
prefer explicitation rather than implicitation strategies in different types
of domains, such as legal texts (Hjort-Pedersen & Faber 2010; Faber &
Hjort-Pedersen 2013), scientific texts (Kruger 2015), children’s literature
(Erfieni 2017); back translation (Makkos & Robin 2014), contrasting expert
and students’ literary translations (Maraeva 2017), and different language
specific features in language combinations such as Russian-English (Tao &
Jiang 2017). Nevertheless, in a very small number of studies contradictory
evidence has also been found (Van Beveren, De Sutter & Colleman 2018).
The textual genre and translation type selected for the study are not
casual. The corpus consists of original and translated medical websites with
information about health issues for the general public. This type of expert to
layperson genre represents an ideal context to study explicitation and implic-
itation phenomena, because lexical and syntactic usage has to be adjusted to
the expectations of end users and to genre conventions. This is so in both
intralingual translation through so-called intralinguistic explicitation (Hill-
Madsen 2015) taking place in expert to non-expert communication, as seen
in the composition of source texts themselves, as well as in explicitation/
implicitation shifts resulting from the translation process.
The specific case of English to Spanish directionality also offers an ideal
context to study lexical explicitation-implicitation. Both languages display
different lexical variation strategies and patterns of use of medical concepts
(e.g. Alarcón, López & Tercedor 2016). Latin and Greek (LG) terms are more
widely used in Spanish than in English. Therefore, a medical LG term might
be adequate in a Spanish text addressed at the non-expert, but this same term
would only be found in a more specialized expert-to-expert text in English
(Campos Andrés 2013). Support for this fact is also found in the comparable
corpus study by Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor (2017), where the rate of use
of LG terms was far less frequent in translations according to normalized
frequency lists. These differences were found to be statistically significant.
It was also found that even when LG terms were less frequently used in
translations, they also showed higher reformulation/explicitation ratios.
This means that translators might simply replicate patterns of lexical use
in source texts, including cases of intralinguistic explicitation, that is, LG
terms with the lay terminological variant (e.g. myalgia, also known as pain
in the muscles; myalgia or muscle pain). In addition, Campos Andrés (2013:
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417866 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
53) indicates the translation of medical patient guides from English into
Spanish does not always require to directly transfer intralinguistic explic-
itation formulations (e.g. dyspnea or difficulty breathing) or doublets (e.g.
scaring or cicatrization) in source English texts: these LG terms can be per-
fectly understood by Spanish lay audiences. Again, the previous study offers
support for this recommendation, as LG terms showed markedly higher
frequency in non-translated texts than in translated ones (Jiménez-Crespo
& Tercedor 2017). Oftentimes, the Spanish target reader has a higher chance
of being familiar and acquainted with terms of LG origin than the English
language reader, since they are common in general language. An example
can be otorrinolaringólogo: this LG term is commonly used in Spanish while
English commonly uses ENT or Ear-Nose-Throat doctor.
The present paper is structured as follows. It first briefly reviews the
notions of explicitation and implicitation in Translation Studies, as well
as the different hypotheses proposed and recent empirical studies about
their causation. It then reviews explicitation and implicitation in translated
medical texts, with a focus on the English-Spanish combination. It presents
the actual phenomena under study, determinologization and the strategies
used to adjust the degree of terminological specialization that involve explic-
itation/implicitation shifts, as well as shifts in the degree of technicality
or specialization of texts. This is followed by an overview of the working
hypotheses, the methodology used and the types of variables and shifts
identified. The results obtained are then presented with a discussion.
2. Explicitation and implicitation in Translation Studies
Explicitation can be considered as the most popular and widely studied
“universal of translation” (Baker 1995), “general feature of translation”
(Chesterman 2004), or “general tendency in translation” (Olohan 2004)
in the subdiscipline of Corpus-Based Translation Studies (CBTS) (Laviosa
2002). The origins of this research trend can be traced to the seminal stud-
ies of Blum-Kulka (1986), Klaudy (1989), Øverås (1998) or Olohan & Baker
(2000). Explicitation was initially defined by Vinay & Darbelnet ([1958]
1995: 342), as a “stylistic translation technique that consists of making
explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source language
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 67
because it is apparent from either the context or the situation”. Another
seminal definition in TS is that by Baker, who defines explicitation as “an
overall tendency to spell things out rather than leave them implicit” (Baker
1996: 180). Blum-Kulka, on her part, defined her explicitation hypothesis
as an “observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TS texts regardless of the
increase traceable difference between the two linguistic and textual systems
involved” (2001: 30). More recent definitions indicate that explicitation “is
observed where a given target text is more explicit than the corresponding
source text” (Becher 2011: 19). Explicitation emerges in all instances of
language mediation (Blum-Kulka 1986:19), including intralinguistic and
interlinguistic communicative processes (Hill-Madsen 2015). Theoretical
studies on explicitation often refer back to the Klaudy’s (1988, 2009) seminal
distinction between obligatory, optional, pragmatic explicitation and trans-
lation-inherent explicitation, the last type being highly controversial (e.g.
Becher 2011). Obligatory explicitation is “dictated by the differences in the
syntactic and semantic structures of languages” (Klaudy 2009: 106), while
optional explicitation is motivated by differences between the source and
target language systems. That is the case of the studies on optional explicita-
tion of the complementizer that in English or om in Dutch (Olohan & Baker
2002; Kruger 2018; Beveren De Sutter & Colleman 2018). These particles
are compulsory in some languages but optional in others. Other studies
have explored, for example, the omission of the subject personal pronoun
in Spanish when translating from English (Jiménez-Crespo 2012), showing
higher rates of explicitation of the subject pronoun, even though Spanish
is a pro-drop language. Pragmatic explicitation is motivated by differences
in the cultural or world knowledge of the source and target text audiences.
The last type, translation-inherent explicitation, is the most controversial.
It is caused by “the nature of the translation process itself” (Klaudy 2008:
107). This type has been the object of several studies that have attempted to
dismiss it as harder to identify or justify (e.g. Becher 2011). De Metsenaere
& Vandepitte (2017), for example, argue that the notion of translation inher-
ent explicitation should be eliminated and all instances under what they
call language systematic categories, or simply in the pragmatic category, as
explicitation is seen as a strategy to avoid risk in communicative settings.
Becher (2011), on his part, indicates that this category is not clearly defined
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417868 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
by Klaudy, and this is exemplified by the fact that this is the category in
which Klaudy herself fails to provide any guiding examples in her work,
thus proving that this is a fuzzy and unclear category.
On its part, the opposite tendency, implicitation, has relatively been
neglected in TS until the last decade (Kruger 2014: 164). Vinay & Darbelnet
defined it as “making what is explicit in the source language implicit in the
target language, relying on the context or the situation for conveying the
meaning” (Vinay & Darbelnet 1995: 344). Similarly, Becher indicates that
implicitation “is observed where a given target text is less explicit (more
implicit) than the corresponding source text” (2010: 51). The study of implic-
itation has regularly been approached as a factor or condition influencing
explicitation.
This brief summary of definitions is by no means comprehensive, and
many other works offer intense debate on definitions and approaches to
explicitation and implicitation (Pym 2005; Becher 2010; Murtisari 2016;
De Metsenaere & Vandepitte 2017). This heterogeneity of approaches and
epistemological fuzziness has complicated a unified approach that allows for
comparison of studies across the board. Often, studies are based on different
theoretical frameworks and points of departure, such as the latest studies
that attempt to define explicitation based on the notions of explicitness from
Relevance Theory (e.g. Murtisari 2016; De Metsenaere & Vandepitte 2017).
According to De Metsenaere & Vandepitte (2017: 383), approaches have been:
[of] very heterogeneous nature, which has made it difficult, if not impos-
sible to compare their findings and to come to conclusive insights into
the meanings of explicitation and implicitation in and for translation and
translation studies.
The issues surrounding explicitation and implicitation are also complicated
by the fact that tendencies are often “tentatively proposed on the basis of
empirical results pertaining only to a subset” (Chesterman 2004: 40), that is,
limited to a phenomenon observed in a specific corpus or language combina-
tion. Similarly, scholars have proposed to incorporate in the study of explic-
itation multiple variables, such as genre, register, and level of specialization.
For example, in a study by Kruger (2016) the degree of technicality or level of
specialization of a text was found to correlate to higher explicitation ratios.
He found that in an expert-to-expert subcorpus of technical texts there was
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 69
a higher rate of explicitation than in an expert-to-semi-expert subcorpus
exhibiting a medium degree of technicality.
Nevertheless, without any doubt, the “tendency” to explicitate has been
mostly confirmed in most textual subsets or translation contexts in CBTS
research, including different language combinations, textual genres, differ-
ent levels of language, and in a number of translation modalities, such as
subtitling (Perego 2003) or localization (Jiménez-Crespo 2011, 2016). It has
also been confirmed on different translational phenomena, such as translated
texts vs. edited-revised translations (Kruger 2012; Bisiada 2017) or even
consecutive (Tang 2018) or simultaneous interpreting (Ewa 2006). However,
some studies have also found inconclusive evidence or are cautious about
attributing the identified effects to explicitation, such as Puurtinen (2004),
Englund Dimitrova (2005), Cheong (2006) or Hansen-Schirra et al. (2007).
Recent studies have not only tried to ascertain whether the explicitation
hypothesis is empirically confirmed, but have also tackled issues of causa-
tion and procedures for testing it, primarily since the advent of advanced
multifactorial statistical analysis in Translation Studies (e.g. Oakes and Ji
2012; Kruger & De Sutter 2018; De Sutter & Lefer 2020). In this sense, CBTS
has progressed towards a more theoretically robust and methodologically
sound treatment of these phenomena (e.g. Becher 2010; Kruger 2013, 2018;
Halverson 2016; De Sutter et al. 2018). Studies have tested the different pro-
posed hypotheses, more specifically the source-language transfer hypothesis
(Becher 2010), also known as the interference or cross-linguistic influence
(CLI) effects (Kruger & Van Rooy 2016; Kruger 2018), the risk-aversion
hypothesis (Pym 2005, 2015) and the processing-strain hypothesis (Olohan
& Baker 2000). According to the cross-linguistic influence effects hypothe-
sis, features or tendencies in translated texts can possibly be traced back to
the replication of source language structures when contrastive differences
between source and target systems exist (Kruger & Van Rooy 2016; Kruger
2018). Therefore, under certain conditions, source language preferences
might be transferred to translations. In the case of explicitation, a source
text in a language “with a preference for greater explicitness” might result
“in a target text that demonstrates increased explicitness in comparison with
non-translated texts in the same language” (Kruger 2018:7). This could be
the cause behind the higher explicitation ratios observed in the previous
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417870 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
study (Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017). If English has a preference for
greater lexical explicitness when using LG terms than Spanish, the higher
ratios observed in the comparable corpus study would be simply caused by
this effect. The risk aversion hypothesis, according to Pym (2005) assumes
that, in any translation process, taking a ‘risk’ might be associated to a par-
tial or complete failure in communication, the main purpose of translation.
Therefore, translators, in a receiver-oriented view of communication, make
information more easily available to the target audience. This includes the
possibility of explicitation, in order to reduce the potential risk of lack of
understanding. According to the processing strain hypothesis / cognitive
complexity hypothesis (Beveren, De Sutter & Colleman 2018; De Kruger
& De Sutter 2018), translators might select the most frequent option in
translation to reduce effort. In this case, if the implicit form might be the
most frequent option, translators might select it to reduce cognitive load,
regardless of other factors.
Recent studies into the causation of explicitation have dismissed the
cross-linguistic influence hypothesis (Kruger & De Sutter 2018), and they
have offered some support for the processing strain hypothesis / cognitive
complexity hypothesis (Beveren, De Sutter & Colleman 2018). Nevertheless,
a majority of studies conclude that the risk-aversion hypothesis is the most
probable cause of explicitation (Becher 2010; Kruger 2018; Kruger & Van
Rooy 2016; Kruger & De Sutter 2018; Kruger 2018), even when risk aversion
might not always imply explicitation (Kruger & De Sutter 2018).
3. Explicitation/ Implicitation in the translation of medical texts
According to Montalt, Zethsen & Karwacka (2018: 29), “[a]ppropriate use
of medical terminology is one of the core conditions for successful com-
munication in monolingual and multilingual healthcare communities”.
Nevertheless, one of the main issues that translators face is “adapting their
terminological choices to genre-specific and register-specific conventions”
(Montalt, Zethsen & Karwacka 2018: 30). In this problem area, medical LG
terms play a key role because, even when they are commonplace in all lan-
guages, their coexistence with vernacular terminological variants varies from
language to language (Askehave & Zethsen 2000; Zethsen 2004; Gutiérrez
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 71
Rodilla 2014; (Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017). Latin was not incorporated
to the same extent in all European Languages (Zethsen 2004: 132), and
while Spanish, Italian and French medical terminology is eminently Latin
and Greek in origin, Northern European languages possess a double-layer
medical terminology. In these languages, many scientific LG words find lay
or lower register counterparts (e.g. clotting / coagulation, scar / cicatrization),
while in Romance languages only the Latin based ones exist (‘coagulación’
and ‘cicatriz’ respectively). Therefore, what “in Latin-based languages might
sound too low a register is perfectly acceptable as scientific terminology
in English” (Montalt-Resurrecció & González Davies 2007: 242). This can
result in different issues, because due to historical differences “seemingly
identical words may indeed be false friends in an interlinguistic context”
and they might also present issues related to the “connotative differences,
e.g. at the level of formality” (Zethsen 2004: 131-132). For example, one of
the most common ways in which synonymy occurs in medical and scientific
domains in English is through the existence of the technical term with its
more or less specialized equivalents or doublets, such as with “cephalalgia”
and “headache”. It is often understood that these cases of synonymy are “a
source of translation problems because languages are not symmetrical in
their use: for example, what in Spanish is considered to be low register may
be perfectly acceptable in English in the same text genre” (Montalt 2011: 80).
Explicitation is part of an intralinguistic communicative process known
as reformulation or determinologization. This is one of the most frequent
strategies at the lexical level to lower the register and adapt textual genres
to non-expert readership. This process appears in medical texts both in
intralingual translation such as the case of research articles summarized
for lay audiences in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Muñoz-Miquel 2012:
200-202), or also in translated texts for general audiences (Tercedor & López
Rodríguez 2012). This process involves using general language to communi-
cate the meaning of a specialized term (Meyer & Mackintosh 2000), helping
to close the gap between specialized knowledge and lay audiences. Montalt
and Shuttleworth (2012: 16) refer to determinologization as:
a process of recontextualisation and reformulation of specialized terms
aiming at making the concepts they designate relevant to and understanda-
ble by a lay audience. This process is motivated by specific cognitive, social
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417872 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
and communicative needs, and takes place as part of a broader process of
recontextualisation and reformulation of discourse.
This process involves a large number of potential strategies that are covered
under this hypernym such as explanation, definition, reformulation, exem-
plification, illustration, analogy, comparison and substitution by a more
popular term (Campos Andrés 2013; Montalt & González Davies 2007: 252-
253). According to Montalt and González Davies (2007), this process can
involve a number of strategies to deal with LG terms:
(1) Retain LG term adding an explanation: Poliuria, increase in the
volume of urine.
(2) Retain LG term in parenthesis after the explanations: increase in the
volume of urine (poliuria).
(3) Retain LG after a popular term: bad breath or halitosis.
(4) LG term is omitted and replaced by explanations or popular terms:
patients can experience an increase in the volume of urine.
All these mechanisms can help increase the readability and efficiency of
translated medical texts for lay readers, but also relate to explicitation. If
reformulation or determinologization represents a natural mechanism in
intralingual translation in medical genres, the translation process can poten-
tially increase or decrease the frequency and nature of the explicitation strat-
egies naturally present in these texts. The study of explicitation in translated
medical texts therefore has to take into consideration the compounding
effect of reformulation as an intralinguistic and intergeneric translation strat-
egy (Ezpeleta 2012), as well as the potential general explicitation tendency
in translated texts.
4. Empirical study
The present study focuses on lexical explicitation. Some studies have focused
on semantic explicitation such as Puurtinen (2004), who zooms in con-
nectives to identify the type of semantic relation that is conveyed. Øverås
(1998:5) includes in her study both grammatical and lexical explicitation,
but the former has primarily been the objective of a handful of studies on
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 73
translations of literary texts (e.g. Olohan & Baker 2000). The research ques-
tions for this study are the following:
1. Research question 1 (RQ1): Do findings from parallel corpora support
the explicitation tendency already observed in translated texts through a
comparable corpus methodology? This would be expected as previous liter-
ature shows that explicitation shifts tend to outnumber implicitation ones,
even when implicitation might be appropriate for the English to Spanish
combination in medical translation.
2. Research question 2 (RQ2): If higher explicitation ratios are found,
do they offer support for the proposed cross-linguistic effect hypothesis
and-or the risk aversion hypothesis?1 This will depend on whether higher
explicitation rates are due solely to the replication of source text structures
in translation in combination with text type and genre specific differences
between the languages under study (EN, ES), or whether translators also
make use of explicitation strategies during the translation process.
The hypotheses for the study are:
(1) Hypothesis 1 (H1). Translated texts will show higher ratios of explic-
itation than implicitation.
(2) Hypothesis 2 (H2). Explicitation in translated texts will mostly be
due to a combination of ST structure replication, as well as to trans-
lation-inherent explicitation.
4.1. Methodology: The parallel and comparable corpus
This study applies a parallel and comparable corpus methodology, the pre-
ferred methodological option to research explicitation and implicitation
(Hansen-Schirra et al. 2007; Murtisari 2016). The Translational Web Corpus
of Medical Spanish (TWCoMS) (Jiménez-Crespo 2014; Jiménez-Crespo &
Tercedor 2017) was used, a comparable corpus project conceived as a tool
to study variation in translated medical terminology in the United States
applied to the VariMed project terminological database (http://varimed.
1. The processing-strain hypothesis (Olohan & Baker 2001) has been discarded for
this study. Previous studies have tested it using complexity -related factors related to
syntax (Beveren, De Sutter & Colleman 2018) and this study focuses primarily on a
noun-phrases related to explicitation of LG terms.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417874 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
ugr.es) (Tercedor, López Rodríguez & Prieto Velasco 2014). It includes a sec-
tion of non-translated medical websites addressed at lay readers in Spanish
alongside a representative sample of Spanish translations of US medical web-
sites. For the purposes of the present study, a small parallel subcorpus was
also added to the TWCoMS, consisting of the largest English websites and
their Spanish versions (CDC.gov, MedlinePlus, Womenshealth.gov, Cancer.
gov). The comparable portion of the corpus was downloaded and compiled
in 2014, and the parallel section in late 2018. The comparable section of the
TWCoMS corpus contains medical websites addressed at general audiences
in the US and a comparable section of websites localized for Latin America,
Mexico and Spain markets.. The translational subcorpus contains 32,330,052
tokens. The comparable non-translational section contains 8,701,867 tokens.
The parallel section was compiled using the Httrack software. Research
has shown that localized websites are normally smaller than the original
counterparts (Jiménez-Crespo 2012), and therefore, not all source webpages
in English in the websites compiled had a Spanish version. For example,
once the website for the Center for Disease Control was downloaded there
were over 244,000 pages, but only 2,540 were in Spanish. In addition, only
1,834 were direct translations with a corresponding source webpage. The
overall parallel corpus thus includes 16,534 source pages with their corre-
sponding localized web pages from the websites Center for Disease Control
(CDC.gov), Cancer.gov, WomensHealth.gov and Medlineplus.gov. The corpus
was aligned at the page level, and not at the segment level. Since Httrack
allows us to download the websites with their internal structures, and each
Spanish page has an “English” translation link and vice versa, the searches
were carried out in the html version of the corpus by means of identifying
the terms used and looking at the localized counterpart.
The terms under study are the original terms used in previous studies
(Jiménez-Crespo 2017; Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017). These terms were
originally selected at random with the Excel function from the VariMed
terminological variation website from an initial list of 100 concepts:
(1) Dysmenorhea – ‘dismenorrea’ : painful periods
(2) Dyspnoea – ‘disnea’ : difficulty breathing
(3) Halitosis – ‘halitosis’ : bad breath
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 75
(4) Hematuria – ‘hematuria’ : presence of blood in the urine
(5) Hypoglycemia – ‘hipoglucemia’ : low blood sugar
(6) Hysterectomy – ‘histerectomía’ : surgical removal of the uterus
(7) Myalgia – ‘mialgia’ : muscle pain
(8) Polydipsia – ‘polidipsia’ : excessive thirst
(9) Polyuria – ‘poliuria’ : excessive volume of urine
(10) Rhinorrhea – ‘rinorrea’ : nasal dripping
(11) Tachypnea – ‘taquipnea’ : fast breathing
(12) Xerosis – ‘xerosis’ : dry skin
(13) Xerostomy – ‘xerostomía’ : dry mouth
All instances of use of these terms in both the source and target texts were
recorded in a database. Only segments using the LG terminological variant
in one or both languages were annotated. This means it is possible that cases
with two or more lay terms that could also involve explicitation- implicita-
tion shifts were not recorded. Nevertheless, due to the lack of lexicalization
of some these lexical units (e.g. hypoglycemia = low blood sugar, low sugar
in the blood, abnormally low level of sugar in the blood, etc.), as well as the
wide range of possible lay term variants for the different concepts under
study, it was decided to focus on LG terms only. The record in the database
included both source and target segments, as well as any possible translation
shifts (see next section). The two types of recorded phenomena were implic-
itation - explicitation shifts and shifts in the degree of specialization (see
next section). The analyses started from a search in Spanish for the probing
medical terms, and once the page opened, the English source webpage was
analyzed. In a second search, the direction was the inverse in order to iden-
tify LG terms in the source texts that might not have been translated into a
LG term in Spanish. The translation pair recorded was the first appearance
of the LG term per webpage. There is usually a repetition of the same trans-
lation solution for a single concept in a webpage, and therefore only the first
instance in the running text when the concept is first introduced or used
was recorded.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417876 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
4.2. Categorization of degree of specialization and explicitation shifts
The analysis conducted included two interrelated steps. The first one involved
the identification of shifts in the degree of specialization. This first step was
necessary as explicitation and implicitation shifts overall are a type of shift
in which the translation displays a higher or lower degree of specialization,
for example when an LG term is substituted in the translation by a lay term
or vice versa. The use of LG terms in specialized texts contributes to their
degree of specialization and terminological density. It is understood to be an
indication of the degree of specialization of a text (Cabré 1999: 89). In this
context and as previously explained, the translation of any medical concept
can include shift in implicitness or explicitness when a reformulation is
added or omitted in the translation. For example, the following translation,
Myalgia > ‘Mialgia (dolor muscular)’ [Myalgia (muscle aches)], shows a more
explicit formulation with the LG term accompanied by a reformulation or
layterm. This simultaneously contributes to lowering slightly the degree of
specialization by combining a specialized term with a lay one. Nevertheless,
in the corpus it is also possible to identify shifts in the degree of speciali-
zation that do not involve explicitation o implicitation. For example, in the
following instance from the corpus: air hunger (feeling that you cannot get
enough air) > ‘Disnea (sensación de que uno no recibe suficiente aire)’, the
layterm air hunger followed by a reformulation that is translated by using the
LG term in Spanish, ‘disnea’, followed by a literal rendition of the intralingual
explicitation found in the source text. This represents a clear case of degree
of specialization shift that does not involve an explicitation-implicitation
shift in the translation.
These shifts in the degree of specialization can include any permutation
between LG terms and lay terminological variants. There were three possible
categories for degree of specialization shifts: 1. Same degree of specialization,
2. Lower to higher, 3. Higher to lower. Figure 1 shows the possible shifts
within each category.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 77
Table 1. Categorization of possible shifts in the degree of specialization
Shift Degree of Specialization
Same Lower to Higher Higher to Lower
1. S-Ø 2. L>H 3. H>L
No Shift-
1. S-Ø
Direct translation
Substitution 2a.L>H-Subst 3a. H>L-Subst
Explicitation 2b.L>H-Expl 3b. H>L-Expl
Implicitation 2c.L>H-Impl 3c. H>L-Impl
Doublet Inversion 2d.L>H-Doublet.Inv 3d.H>L-Doublet.Inv
The first category, 1. S-Ø involves no change in the degree of specialization,
that is, the LG term stays the same in the translation. This involves a direct
or literal translation of the source text, maintaining the same patterns of
lexical use as in the source text, both in the single use of the LG term or the
combined used of an LG term with its reformulation or intralingual lexical
explicitation.
1. Degree of specialization shift: Ø same
Hypoglycemia > ‘Hipoglucemia’
Hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar > ‘Hipoglucemia, o azúcar bajo en
la sangre’
Categories 2 (L>H) and 3 (H>L) involve shifts from lower to higher degree
of specialization or vice versa. They are subdivided into four possible sub-
categories that involve a shift by means of using (a) substitution, (b) explic-
itation, (c) implicitation, or (d) doublet inversion.
Substitution (2a and 3a), involves for example a shift by means of substi-
tuting a lay term, such as shortness of breath, for the corresponding LG term
in the Spanish translation, ‘disnea’. This is a case of increasing the degree
of specialization, 2a.L>H-Subs, but this can also happen in the opposite
direction, with the LG term substituted entirely by a lay term, 3a.L>H-Subs.
2.a. L>H-Subs. Degree of Specialization/Low to High/ Substitution
…if you experience shortness of breath > ‘… si tiene disnea’.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417878 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
...has trouble breathing (shortness of breath) > … ‘tiene dificultad para
respirar (disnea)’.
Explicitation (subcategories 2b and 3b) involve adding a doublet, either a
LG term to a lay term or vice versa. It can involve adding a lay term or refor-
mulation to an existing LG term in the source text, lowering the degree of
specialization, 3b. H>L-Expl. This is considered as one of the explicitation
categories, as from one term the translation rendering includes two. It is
also possible that the translation can involve a LG term added to a lay term,
2b.L>H-Expl. This is also considered as one of the explicitation categories.
2.b. L>H-Expl. Degree of Specialization/Lower to Higher /Explicitation
Shortness of breath > ‘disnea (dificultad para respirar)’ [dyspnea (diffi-
culty breathing)]
Implicitation (subcategories 2.c. and 3.c.) involve implicitation shifts by
eliminating-deleting one part of a doublet, going from LG term plus refor-
mulation in any order to just one. This is a less explicit formulation and
therefore identified as implicitation in this study. Depending on which part
is deleted the degree of specialization is increased, 2c.L>H-Impl, or lowered
3c.H>L-Impl.
2.c. L>H-Impl Degree of Specialization/Low to High/ Implicitation
- Low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) > ‘Hipoglucemia’
3.c. H>L-Impl.
- Myalgia > ‘Mialgia (dolor muscular)’
Double inversion (subcategories 2.d. and 3.d.) involves a minimal shift in
the degree of specialization within the low to high continuum. Here the LG
term and its reformulation are reversed, presenting the LG term first, rather
than second, or the other way around. This involves no explicitation shift,
but rather an inversion as it might be perceived that the LG term is more
transparent to target text users to be presented first.
2.d. Degree of Specialization/Lower to Higher/ Doublet Inversion.
- Low blood sugar (hypoglycemia)’ > Hipoglucemia (nivel bajo de azúcar
en la sangre)’
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 79
After this categorization of the shifts in the degree of specialization, cate-
gories 2.b, 2.c., 3.b and 3.c would be representative of more or less explicit
formulations, and therefore indicative of the tendencies under study here.
Table 2. Categorization of explicitation and implicitation shifts
Explicitation/Implicitation Shifts Target Text Shifts
Intralingual Explicitation
(2 or more terms / Ø Literal
Source Texts Implicitation
expressions to render a translation
concept)
No intralingual
Ø Same. Literal
explicitation Explicitation
translation
(1 term to render a concept)
The analysis of the data yielded four possible types of explicitation/implicita-
tion shifts. The source text can display either a single medical term variant,
or can use two or more. Explicitation shifts will be observed if the translation
displays more than one terminological variant or a reformulation, while
all instances of source texts that display intralinguistic explicitation (Hill-
Madsen 2015) can be rendered as a single terminological or reformulation
variant.
The first category would be observed if there is a literal translation of a
doublet such as:
(1) Shortness of breath (dyspnea) > ‘Falta de aire (disnea)’
(2) A lower-than-normal blood glucose level (hypoglycemia) > ‘Un nivel
de glucosa en la sangre inferior a lo normal (hipoglucemia)’
Meanwhile, an implicitation shift would emerge if any of the two parts would
be deleted.
(1) Shortness of breath (dyspnea) > ‘Disnea’
This case is not limited to instances of two terms or lexical units in which
one is omitted, since some examples in the corpus include up to three
reformulations (e.g. “Dyspnea is the feeling of difficult or uncomfortable
breathing or of not getting enough air” (EN)- “La disnea es la sensación de
dificultad o incomodidad para respirar, o de no conseguir suficiente aire”.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417880 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
The omission of any of these three lexical units could be considered as an
implicitation shift.
On the other hand, any instance of a single LG term or lay variant can
be more explicit in the translation if it is accompanied by a second variant
or reformulation.
(1) Low blood sugar > ‘un nivel bajo de azúcar en la sangre (hipogluce-
mia)’ [a low level of sugar in the blood (hypoglycemia)]
(2) Myalgia > ‘mialgia (dolor muscular)’ [myalgia (muscle pain)].
This study thus clearly defines what is explicit and implicit (De Metsenaere
& Vandepitte 2017: 387), namely LG reformulation or determinologization
(or the omission thereof) in the translation. As previously mentioned, given
the different level of specialization attributed to many LG terms between
Spanish and English, it should be expected that in the English to Spanish
direction the reformulation of the LG term could be sometimes deleted in the
translation process (Montalt & González Davies 2005; Campos Andrés 2013).
Therefore, the decision to insert or delete a doublet or the use/absence of a
determinologization strategy with a specialized term in a semi-specialized
text is considered indicative of explicitness or implicitness in translation.
5. Results
The results of the parallel corpus analysis point to 316 instances in which the
selected LG terms were translated in the corpus from English into Spanish.
These cases identified might seem in principle a small volume considering
the corpus size, but it should be remembered that only the selected medical
terms in the previous study were used, and only the first instance per web-
page was selected.
5.1. Results: Shifts in the degree of specialization or technicality
Table 3 shows the results of the contrastive analysis of degree of speciali-
zation or technicality. In 80.69% of the instances (255 of the total 316) the
translation did not present a shift in the degree of specialization, that is,
the translation showed a direct or literal rendering of the source text, as
compared to 19.31% of shifts (61 of 316 instances). Within this, in 19% of
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 81
instances of medical concepts under study there was a shift from lower to
higher degree of specialization, while only 0.31% of cases involved lower-
ing the degree of specialization. This means that translated texts showed a
marked tendency to keep the same degree of specialization as the source text
by means of replication of source language structures. In those cases where
a shift occurs, the most frequent one is to increase the level of specialization
by adding a doublet, that is, translating a lay term in English by adding also
the LG term, that is explicitation (52.46% of the shifts, 10.12% of the total
instances). The next most frequent one involved going from lower to higher
degree of specialization by substituting a lay term for a LG term (44.26% of
shifts, 8.54% of total instances). Last but not least, another shift that does
not involve explicitation or implicitation but that is argued here as a shift,
a doublet inversion from higher to lower degree of specialization, is present
in 0.31% of cases. This shift often involves an LG term followed by a refor-
mulation or lay term that is reversed in the translated text.
Table 3. Results. Degree of specialization shifts
Degree of Specialization
Total instances N=316
No Shift Shift
80.69% Low to High L>H (19%) High to Low H>L (0.31%)
N=255 N=60 N=1
2a.L>H-Subst 3.a. H>L-Subst
44.26% (8.54 of total instances) 0%
N=27 N=0
2b.L>H-Expl
3b. H>L-Expl
52.46% (10.12% of total
1.64% (0.31 of total instances)
instances)
N:1
N=32
2c.L>H-Impl 3c. H>L-Impl
0% 0%
N=0 N=0
2d.L>H-Doublet.Inv 3d.H>L-Doublet.Inv
1.64% 0%
N=1 N=0
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417882 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
In sum, if the results are compiled 19% of instances of medical concepts in
this study showed a lower to higher degree of specialization shift. The reverse
option, a shift from higher to lower degree of specialization only appeared in
0.31% of cases. It should be noted that explicitation shifts in terms of shifts
in the degree of specialization are the most common, and that implicitation
is not found in the corpus under study. These results therefore also confirm
H2, as explicitation found in translated texts is due to a combination of ST
structure replication, as well to translation-inherent explicitation.
5.2. Results: Analysis of implicitation- explicitation shifts
In the dataset for this study (316 LG terms), 153 instances in the dataset
would allow for implicitation shifts, as the ST includes a doublet or triplet,
that is, the medical concept is rendered in the ST through multiple terms.
This could be considered cases of intralingual explicitation (Hill-Madsen
2015). Meanwhile, 165 cases would allow for explicitation shifts as the med-
ical concept is rendered through a monolexical terminological unit.
The results show that when explicitation is possible, a shift is identified
in 20.6% (34/165) of possible cases, while there are no implicitation shifts
(0/147) (p= < 0.0001)2. Explicitation shifts are therefore quite more prevalent
than implicitation ones in the dataset. This higher tendency for explicitation
can be even found in instances in which a doublet in the ST has been ren-
dered with three terms or lexical units, such as the following:
(1) This condition is called shortness of breath. The medical term for this
is dyspnea. > ‘Esta afección se denomina falta de aliento o dificultad
para respirar. El término médico para esto es disnea’ [This condition
is known as shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. The medical
term is dyspnea]
2. Two-tailed Fisher’s exact test.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 83
Table 4. Results of explicitation and implicitation shift analysis in parallel
corpus
Explicitation/Implicitation Shifts Target Text Shifts
Ø Literal Implicitation
Intralingual
Source Texts translation N:0
Explicitation
N:147 0%
Ø Same. Literal Explicitation
No intralingual
translation N: 34
explicitation
N: 131 20.6%
In this case the lay term, shortness of breath, followed by an explanation that
indicates that the medical term for this is dyspnea, is translated by using two
layterms in Spanish, ‘falta de aliento’ and ‘dificultad para respirar’, followed
also by the medical term dyspnea. It should be mentioned that in the corpus
there were instances of deletion, primarily in pronunciation information for
English speaking patients that was deleted in the translation. Spanish target
readers can easily read any LG term and therefore that aid for source lan-
guage readers is not necessary and deleted “dyspnea (DISP-nee-uh): Difficult,
painful breathing or shortness of breath” > ‘disnea: Respiración difícil, dolo-
rosa o deficiencia respiratoria.
6. Discussion
In the previous comparable corpus study (Jiménez-Crespo & Tercedor 2017),
LG terms in translations were accompanied by a reformulation in 40.6% of
cases, while it was 21.23% for those found in the non-translational corpus.
This means that translations contained overall higher rates of explicitation
of LG terms, and whether it was the direct result, or not, of the translational
process could not be identified with that comparable corpus. These results
show that when the concepts under study appear in source or target texts,
10.44% of overall cases can be attributed to translation-specific or transla-
tion-inherent explicitation. These results, although not fully comparable,
do not match the difference between the translational and non-translational
ratios found in the previous study. The remaining cases can therefore be
attributed to cross-linguistic effects (Kruger & Van Rooy 2016). This can
therefore be indicative that (1) the translation process leave unmistakable
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-417884 Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel Ángel & Maribel Tercedor Sánchez
traces of explicitation in translation products, (2) implicitation shifts do
not appear in translation products under study, even when it could be pos-
sible, (3) higher levels of explicitation in translated texts when compared
to non-translated ones are due to cross-linguistic effects, that is, translators
simply replicate existing source text structures regardless of possible lan-
guage specific differences in the genre under examination and (4) combining
comparable and parallel corpora can provide a clearer and richer picture of
general tendencies and potential causes.
The results therefore offer support for H1, as translated texts show higher
ratios of explicitation than implicitation. In addition, this preference appears
in a specific case in which implicitation might be suitable or might be a
preferred option in the target language.
RQ 2 indicated that if H2 would be confirmed, it would offer support
for the interference or cross-linguistic effects hypothesis, as well as for the
risk-aversion hypothesis. It is clear that most cases of explicitation are due
to cross-linguistic effects, thus offering support for this proposed hypoth-
esis. The translations do show traces of the existing contrastive differences
between both languages, as LG terms are less commonly used in Spanish
than in English. As far as the risk aversion hypothesis, the picture that
emerges is less clear and needs to be explored in future studies. It is clear
that explicitation is preferred to implicitation, and translations are more
explicit than non-translations. When it is possible to explicitate, 20.6% of
cases include explicitation, with no cases of implicitation. Nevertheless, this
study has also shown that explicitation strategies go hand in hand with shifts
in the degree of specialization, such as changing a layterm in the source text
for a LG term (8.54%) (e.g. ‘muscle pain’ translated as ‘myalgia’ in Spanish).
This raises the question of how explicitation interacts with other lexical
shifts in terms of risk avoidance or making the text more clear or easy to
understand. Approximately half the cases involve explicitation shifts by
adding a LG term to a lay lexical unit, a strategy that might lead to increase
the ease of comprehension, while the other half solely involve substituting a
lay term for an LG term. It is quite possible that the explicitation ratios here
are due to risk avoidance, but it is not fully clear then, as well as a potential
question for future studies, whether risk avoidance strategies can be con-
firmed using only one possible strategy out of many possible factors. What
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178Explicitation and implicitation in translation: Combining comparable and… 85
is clear is that studying lexical explicitation with other lexical shifts might
provide a broader and more complete picture.
7. Final remarks
The motivation for this study was to offer a clearer insight into the differences
in the frequency of use of LG terms and explicitation ratios between trans-
lated and non-translated texts as described in a previous study (Jiménez-
Crespo & Tercedor 2017). This paper has shown that the observed dif-
ferences can primarily be attributed to language and genre specific differ-
ences in the language pair involved, that is, they can be attributed to direct
transferring of the source text structures, with a percentage of what can
be called translation-inherent explicitation (20.6% of possible cases), that
is, shifts seem to emerge due to the specific communicative nature of the
translation process itself. This general tendency is further supported by the
fact that there were no cases of implicitation, even when this strategy was
possible and/or appropriate. These results thus add to the body of litera-
ture that confirms explicitation as a general tendency in translation. They
also offer support for the cross-linguistic effect (Kruger & Van Rooy 2016)
as a possible causality of higher explicitation rates in translations than in
similar non-translated texts, as translations primarily replicate source text
structures in English source texts. The study offers a more lukewarm sup-
port for the risk aversion hypothesis, with one fifth of possible cases using
explicitation. This study has shown that other types of lexical shifts might
interact with these explicitation shifts, the objective of future studies. What
is clear is that the combination of the parallel and comparable corpus meth-
odologies has offered strong support for the existence of translation-inherent
explicitation, and a combination of both methodologies seems suitable for
the study of these phenomena.
MonTI 13 (2021: 62-92) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178You can also read
